sql : select * from user_info where userid='1100907' and status='1'
userid is indexed, the table has less than 10000 rows and has a LOB column.
The sql takes 1 second (I got this by using "set timing on" in sqlplus). I tried to use all columns names to replace *,but still 1 second. After I removed the LOB column ,the sql takes 0.99 secs . When I reduced the number of columns by half, the time goes to halved too.
Finally, select userid from user_info where userid='1100907' and status='1' takes 0.01 seconds.
Can someone figure it out ?
Bear in mind that "wall clock performance testing" is unreliable. It is subject to ambient database conditions, and - when outputting to SQL*Plus - dependent on how long it takes to physically display the data. That might explain why selecting half the columns really has such a substantial impact on elapsed time. How many columns does this table have?
Tuning starts with EXPLAIN PLAN. This tool will show you how the database will execute your query. Find out more.
For instance, it is quicker to service this query
select userid from user_info
then this one
select * from user_info
because the database can satisfy the first query with information from the index on userid, without touching the table at all.
edit
"Can you tell me why sqlplus print
column names many many times other
than just returning result"
This is related to paging. SQLPlus repeats the column headers every time it throws a page. You can suppress this behaviour with either of these SQLPlus commands:
set heading off
or
set pages n
In that second case, make n very big (e.g. 2000) or zero.
Perhaps you have 100 columns in the user_info table? If so, how many of those columns do you actually need in the query?
Related
I have a table named [cwbOrder] that currently has 1.277.469 rows. I am using SQL Server 2014 and I am doing these tests on a UAT environment, on production this query takes a little bit longer.
If I try selecting all of the rows like using:
SELECT * FROM cwbOrder
It takes 24 seconds to retrieve all of the data from the table. I have read about how it is important to index columns used in the predicates (WHERE), but I still cannot understand how does a simple select take 24 seconds.
Using this table in other more complex queries generates a lot of extra workload for the query, although I have created the JOINs on indexed columns. Additionally I have selected only 2 columns from this table then JOINED it to another table and this operation still takes a significantly long amount of time. As an example please consider the below query:
Below I have attached the index structure of both tables, to illustrate the matter:
PK_cwbOrder is the index on the id_cwbOrder column in the cwbOrder table.
Edit 1: I have added the execution plan for the query in which I join the cwbOrder table with the cwbAction table.
Is there any way, considering the information above, that I can make this query faster?
There are many reasons why such a select could be slow:
The row size or number of rows could be very large, requiring a lot of time to transport or delay.
Other operations on the table could have locks on the table.
The database server or network could be very busy.
The "table" could really be a view that is running a complicated query.
You can test different aspects. For instance:
SELECT TOP 10 <one column here>
FROM cwbOrder o
This returns a very small result set and reads just a small part of the table. This reads the entire table but returns a small result set:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM cwbOrder o
I have an strange behavior on an oracle database. We make a huge insert of around 3.1 million records. Everything fine so far.
Shortly after the insert finished (around 1 too 10 minutes) I execute two statements.
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM TABLE
SELECT * FROM TABLE
The result from the first statement is fine it gives me the exact number of rows that was inserted.
The result from the second statement is now the problem. Depending on the time, the number of rows that are returned is for example around 500K lower than the result from the first statement. The difference of the two results is decreasing with time.
So I have to wait 15 to 30 minutes before both statements return the same number of rows.
I already talked with the oracle dba about this issue but he has no idea how this could happen.
Any ideas, questions or suggestions?
Update
When I select only an index column I get the correct row count.
When I instead select an non index column I get again the wrong row count.
That doesn't sounds like a bug to me, if I understood you correctly, it just takes time for Oracle to fetch the entire table . After all, 3 Mil is not a small amount.
As opposed to count, which brings 1 record with the total number of rows.
If after some waiting, the number of records being output equals to the number that the count query returns, then everything is fine.
Have you already verified with these things:
1- Count single column instead of * ALL to verify both result
2- You can verify both queries result by adding where clause and gradually select more rows by removing conditions so that you can get the issue where it is returning different value from both.
I think you should check Execution plan to identify missing indexes to improve performance.
Add missing Indexes and check the result.
Why missing Indexes are impotent:
To count row, Oracle engine no need to go throw paging operation. But while fetching all the details from a table, it requires to go through paging.
And paging process depends on indexes created on a table to fetch the data effectively and fast.
So to decrease time for your second statement, you should find missing indexes and create those indexes.
How to Find Missing Indexes:
You can start with DBA_HIST_ACTIVE_SESS_HISTORY, and look at all statements that contain that type of hint.
From there, you can pull the index name coming from that hint, and then do a lookup on dba_indexes to see if the index exists, is valid, etc.
Is there a way to define the maximum size per table or the maximum number of rows in a table? (for a SELECT INTO new_table operation)
I was working with SELECT INTO and JOINS in tables with approximately 70 million rows and it happened that I made a mistake in the ON condition. As a consequence, the result of this join operation created a table larger than the database size limit. The DB crashed and went into a recovery mode (which left for 2 days)
I would like to know how to avoid this kind of problem in the future. Is there any "good manners manual" when working with huge tables? Any kind of pre-defined configuration to prevent this problem?
I don't have the code but as I said, it was basically a left join and the result inserted in a new table through SELECT INTO.
PS: I don't have much experience with SQL SERVER or any other Relational database.
Thank you.
SET ROWCOUNT 10000 would have made it so that no more than 10,000 rows would be inserted. However, while that can prevent damage, it would also mask the mistake you made with your SQL query.
I'd say that before running any SELECT INTO, I would do a SELECT COUNT(*) to see how many rows my JOIN and WHERE clauses are resulting in. If the count is huge, or if it spends hours even coming up with a count, then that's your warning sign.
I have a table
Books(BookId, Name, ...... , PublishedYear)
I do have about 30 fields in my Books table, where BookId is the primary key (Identity column). I have about 2 million records for this table.
I know select * is evil performance killer..
I have a situation to select range of rows or all the rows having all the columns in it.
Select * from Books;
this query takes more than 2 seconds to scan through the data page and get all the records. On checking the execution it still uses the Clustered index scan.
Obviously 2 seconds my not be that bad, however when this table has to be joined with other tables which is executed in batch is taking time over 15 minutes (There are no duplicate records though on the final result at completion as the count is matching). The join criteria is pretty simple and yields no duplication.
Excluding this table alone has the batch execution completed in sub seconds.
Is there a way to optimize this having said that I will have to select all the columns :(
Thanks in advance.
I've just run a batch against my developer instance, one SELECT specifying all Columns and one using *. There is no evidence (nor should there) that there is any difference aside from the raw parsing of my input. If I remember correctly, that old saying really means: Do not SELECT columns you are not using, they use up resources without benefit.
When you try to improve performance in your code, always check your assumptions, they might only apply to some older version (of sql server etc) or other method.
I'm selecting some rows from a table valued function but have found an inexplicable massive performance difference by putting SELECT TOP in the query.
SELECT col1, col2, col3 etc
FROM dbo.some_table_function
WHERE col1 = #parameter
--ORDER BY col1
is taking upwards of 5 or 6 mins to complete.
However
SELECT TOP 6000 col1, col2, col3 etc
FROM dbo.some_table_function
WHERE col1 = #parameter
--ORDER BY col1
completes in about 4 or 5 seconds.
This wouldn't surprise me if the returned set of data were huge, but the particular query involved returns ~5000 rows out of 200,000.
So in both cases, the whole of the table is processed, as SQL Server continues to the end in search of 6000 rows which it will never get to. Why the massive difference then? Is this something to do with the way SQL Server allocates space in anticipation of the result set size (the TOP 6000 thereby giving it a low requirement which is more easily allocated in memory)?
Has anyone else witnessed something like this?
Thanks
Table valued functions can have a non-linear execution time.
Let's consider function equivalent for this query:
SELECT (
SELECT SUM(mi.value)
FROM mytable mi
WHERE mi.id <= mo.id
)
FROM mytable mo
ORDER BY
mo.value
This query (that calculates the running SUM) is fast at the beginning and slow at the end, since on each row from mo it should sum all the preceding values which requires rewinding the rowsource.
Time taken to calculate SUM for each row increases as the row numbers increase.
If you make mytable large enough (say, 100,000 rows, as in your example) and run this query you will see that it takes considerable time.
However, if you apply TOP 5000 to this query you will see that it completes much faster than 1/20 of the time required for the full table.
Most probably, something similar happens in your case too.
To say something more definitely, I need to see the function definition.
Update:
SQL Server can push predicates into the function.
For instance, I just created this TVF:
CREATE FUNCTION fn_test()
RETURNS TABLE
AS
RETURN (
SELECT *
FROM master
);
These queries:
SELECT *
FROM fn_test()
WHERE name = #name
SELECT TOP 1000 *
FROM fn_test()
WHERE name = #name
yield different execution plans (the first one uses clustered scan, the second one uses an index seek with a TOP)
I had the same problem, a simple query joining five tables returning 1000 rows took two minutes to complete. When I added "TOP 10000" to it it completed in less than one second. It turned out that the clustered index on one of the tables was heavily fragmented.
After rebuilding the index the query now completes in less than a second.
Your TOP has no ORDER BY, so it's simply the same as SET ROWCOUNT 6000 first. An ORDER BY would require all rows to be evaluated first, and it's would take a lot longer.
If dbo.some_table_function is a inline table valued udf, then it's simply a macro that's expanded so it returns the first 6000 rows as mentioned in no particular order.
If the udf is multi valued, then it's a black box and will always pull in the full dataset before filtering. I don't think this is happening.
Not directly related, but another SO question on TVFs
You may be running into something as simple as caching here - perhaps (for whatever reason) the "TOP" query is cached? Using an index that the other isn't?
In any case the best way to quench your curiosity is to examine the full execution plan for both queries. You can do this right in SQL Management Console and it'll tell you EXACTLY what operations are being completed and how long each is predicted to take.
All SQL implementations are quirky in their own way - SQL Server's no exception. These kind of "whaaaaaa?!" moments are pretty common. ;^)
It's not necessarily true that the whole table is processed if col1 has an index.
The SQL optimization will choose whether or not to use an index. Perhaps your "TOP" is forcing it to use the index.
If you are using the MSSQL Query Analyzer (The name escapes me) hit Ctrl-K. This will show the execution plan for the query instead of executing it. Mousing over the icons will show the IO/CPU usage, I believe.
I bet one is using an index seek, while the other isn't.
If you have a generic client:
SET SHOWPLAN_ALL ON;
GO
select ...;
go
see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187735.aspx for details.
I think Quassnois' suggestion seems very plausible. By adding TOP 6000 you are implicitly giving the optimizer a hint that a fairly small subset of the 200,000 rows are going to be returned. The optimizer then uses an index seek instead of an clustered index scan or table scan.
Another possible explanation could caching, as Jim davis suggests. This is fairly easy to rule out by running the queries again. Try running the one with TOP 6000 first.